Learning and Individual Differences 19 (2009) 151–154
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Learning and Individual Differences
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / l i n d i f
Implicit beliefs, achievement goals, and procrastination: A mediational analysis
Andrew J. Howell a,⁎, Karen Buro b
a
b
Department of Psychology, Grant MacEwan College, P.O. Box 1796, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T5J 2P2
Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Grant MacEwan College, Canada T5J 2P2
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 8 February 2008
Received in revised form 12 June 2008
Accepted 10 August 2008
Keywords:
Procrastination
Implicit Theories
Achievement goal orientations
Self-regulation
a b s t r a c t
As a maladaptive behavioural outcome, procrastination should correlate with beliefs about ability and
achievement goals that are themselves relatively maladaptive. Accordingly, procrastination should be
predicted by entity as opposed to incremental implicit theories (i.e., viewing attributes such as ability as
relatively fixed vs. malleable, respectively) and by avoidance goal orientations as opposed to approach goal
orientations. Among 397 undergraduates, entity beliefs and mastery-avoidance goals positively predicted
procrastination whereas incremental beliefs and mastery-approach and performance-approach goals
negatively predicted procrastination. The prediction of procrastination by entity beliefs was mediated by
mastery-avoidance goals. Results are cast in terms of self-regulatory models of procrastination.
© 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Procrastination is commonly conceptualized as involving failure of
self-regulation (e.g., Steel, 2007). As such, it should be possible to
predict procrastination using variables implicated in models of selfregulation applied to learning. Self-regulated learning is defined as the
“active, constructive process whereby learners set goals for their
learning and then attempt to monitor, regulate, and control their
cognition, motivation, and behaviour, guided and constrained by their
goals and the contextual features of the environment” (Pintrich, 2000,
p. 453). Two variables emphasized in models of self-regulated
learning are implicit theories and achievement goal orientations.
1. Implicit theories and achievement goal orientations
An important variable associated with motivation and learning is
the extent to which personal attributes, such as ability, are viewed as
fixed or malleable (Dweck, 1999; Dweck, Chui, & Hong, 1995; Dweck &
Leggett, 1988). Endorsement of an entity theory means that attributes
are perceived as relatively stable and unchangeable. Endorsement of
an incremental theory means that attributes are viewed as malleable
and open to influence. Theory and evidence suggest that adoption of
an incremental view, relative to an entity view, is associated with
more adaptive cognitive and behavioural consequences, including
greater effort and persistence when confronted with adversity (Dweck
et al., 1995).
The achievement goal framework posits that people differ in the
extent to which they adopt various goals concerning their achievement behaviour and that these differences are associated with
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 780 497 5329; fax: +1 780 497 5308.
E-mail address: howella@macewan.ca (A.J. Howell).
1041-6080/$ – see front matter © 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2008.08.006
distinctive emotional, motivational, cognitive, and behavioural outcomes (e.g., Elliot, 2005; Pintrich, 2000). Elliot and McGregor (2001)
conceptualized a “2 × 2 achievement goal framework” involving four
goal orientations: The mastery-approach orientation involves striving
to learn all there is to learn; the mastery-avoidance orientation
involves avoiding failing to learn what there is to learn; the performance-approach orientation involves seeking to perform better than
others; and the performance-avoidance orientation involves avoiding
poor performance relative to others. Students may adopt multiple goal
orientations simultaneously (Pintrich, 2000); as such, the degree to
which each orientation is adopted is often the focus of measurement
(e.g., Elliot & McGregor, 2001). Studies examining associations
between goal orientation scores and indices of achievement-related
functioning suggest that approach-oriented goals are associated with
a more adaptive profile of functioning than avoidance-oriented goals
(Moller & Elliot, 2006).
Dweck et al. (Dweck, 1999; Dweck et al., 1995; Dweck & Leggett,
1988) posited that entity beliefs promote the adoption of performance-related goals (i.e., goals concerned with demonstrating one's
fixed level of competence) whereas incremental beliefs promote the
adoption of mastery-approach goals (i.e., goals concerned with
developing one's alterable level of competence). Only two studies
have examined all four orientations in relation to entity and
incremental theories. Elliot and McGregor (2001, Study 3) demonstrated that mastery-avoidance goals were positively associated with
entity beliefs and negatively associated with incremental beliefs. In
contrast, Cury, Elliot, Da Fonseca, and Moller (2006) showed that
incremental beliefs correlated positively with mastery-approach and
mastery-avoidance goal orientations whereas entity beliefs correlated
positively with performance-approach and performance-avoidance
goal orientations.
152
A.J. Howell, K. Buro / Learning and Individual Differences 19 (2009) 151–154
2. Implicit theories, goal orientations, and procrastination
4. Method
Given that approach-related goal orientations tend to be
associated with adaptive self-regulatory processes whereas avoidance orientations tend to be associated with maladaptive selfregulatory processes (Moller & Elliot, 2006), procrastination should
be associated more with the latter than the former. Howell
and Watson (2007) revealed that the mastery-approach goal
orientation correlated negatively with procrastination whereas the
mastery-avoidance orientation correlated positively with procrastination. Performance-oriented goals were not associated with
procrastination.
No research has examined relationships between implicit theories
and procrastination. However, Rhodewalt (1994) and Ommundsen
(2001) examined relationships among implicit theories of ability, goal
orientations, and self-handicapping. While not equivalent to procrastination, meta-analyses have revealed self-handicapping to be a
significant positive correlate of procrastination (Steel, 2007; van
Eerde, 2003) and self-handicapping motivates some maladaptive
postponement behaviour (e.g., Ferrari & Tice, 2000). Also, Dweck
(1999) speculated on a self-handicapping process in which entity
theorists defensively withdraw their effort to preserve attributions to
ability in the face of success.
Rhodewalt (1994) had undergraduates complete measures corresponding to self-handicapping, entity and incremental beliefs, and
mastery-approach and performance-approach goals. An entity view
correlated positively with self-handicapping whereas an incremental
view was not associated with self-handicapping. Mastery-approach goals
correlated negatively with self-handicapping whereas performanceapproach goals correlated positively with self-handicapping. Ommundsen
(2001) had 9th graders complete measures of self-handicapping, implicit
theories, and mastery-approach and performance-approach goals. Entity
beliefs correlated positively with self-handicapping, whereas incremental
beliefs related negatively to self-handicapping. A performance-approach
goal orientation was unrelated to self-handicapping, whereas a masteryapproach orientation was negatively related to self-handicapping.
4.1. Participants
3. The current study
The present study examined associations between incremental
and entity theories, the four goal orientations comprising the 2 × 2
achievement goal framework, and procrastination. The first purpose
was to examine relations between implicit theories and procrastination and between goal orientation and procrastination. It was
hypothesized that entity beliefs would predict higher procrastination
and that incremental beliefs would predict lower procrastination. It
was also hypothesized that a mastery-approach goal orientation
would predict lower procrastination whereas a mastery-avoidance
goal orientation would predict higher procrastination. The second
purpose was to test whether achievement goal orientations mediate
the relationship between implicit theories and procrastination.
Participants were 397 introductory psychology students (mean
age = 20.6) who participated as part of a larger study concerning
subjective well-being and academic functioning. Females comprised
72% of the sample.
4.2. Measures
The four items comprising the entity scale of Dweck's (1999)
domain-general measure of implicit theories assessed the extent to
which personal attributes are viewed as stable or enduring whereas
the four items comprising the incremental scale assessed the extent to
which attributes are seen to be malleable. All items are rated on a scale
with endpoints 1 (strongly agree) and 6 (strongly disagree). Scale scores
are calculated by summing across items. Elliot and McGregor (2001)
reported alpha coefficients of .82 and .85 for the entity and
incremental scales, respectively, and Dweck et al. (1995) established
the discriminant validity of the scales (e.g., against measures of
cognitive abilities and social desirability).
The Achievement Goal Questionnaire (Elliot & McGregor, 2001) is
comprised of 12 items, with three items composing each of the four
achievement goal orientations. Items are rated on scales ranging from
1 (not at all true of me) to 7 (very true of me). Scores for each goal
orientation are calculated by averaging across the three items. Elliot
and McGregor reported evidence attesting to the reliability of the
mastery-approach (α = .87), mastery-avoidance (α = .89), performanceapproach (α = .92) and performance-avoidance (α = .83) dimensional
scales. They also validated the measure by showing, for example, that
endorsement of avoidant goals positively correlated with measures of
negative affect whereas endorsement of approach goals positively
correlated with need for achievement.
The 16-item Procrastination Scale (Tuckman, 1991) measures the
tendency to delay task initiation or completion, as well as tendencies
toward indecisiveness and poor time management in the completion
of tasks. Items are rated on 4-point scales with endpoints labeled 1
(that's me for sure) and 4 (that's not me for sure). In producing total
scores, the rating scale was reversed prior to summing across the 16
items, so that higher scores indicated greater procrastination. Tuckman (1991) established the internal consistency of the Procrastination
Scale (α = .90) and reported significant associations between Procrastination Scale scores and a behavioural measure of procrastination.
5. Results
5.1. Descriptive statistics and inter-correlations
Descriptive statistics are reported in Table 1. In line with
predictions, entity beliefs correlated positively with procrastination
Table 1
Descriptive statistics for all variables
Variable
M
SD
Observed range
Possible range
Pearson Inter-correlations among variables
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1. Entity beliefs
2. Incremental beliefs
3. Mastery-approach
4. Mastery-avoidance
5. Performance-approach
6. Performance-avoidance
7. Procrastination Scale
8. Age
13.02
15.35
5.12
4.24
3.90
5.06
40.49
20.60
4.16
4.08
1.24
1.55
1.77
1.27
8.60
2.91
4.00–23.00
4.00–24.00
1.33–7.00
1.00–7.00
1.00–7.00
1.00–7.00
18.00–63.00
17.00–31.00
4.00–24.00
4.00–24.00
1.00–7.00
1.00–7.00
1.00–7.00
1.00–7.00
16.00–64.00
–
(.71)
−.61⁎⁎⁎
−.11⁎
.14⁎⁎
.10⁎
.10⁎
.15⁎⁎
−.13⁎
(.80)
.09
−.07
−.04
−.12⁎
−.10⁎
.14⁎⁎
(.74)
.32⁎⁎⁎
.23⁎⁎⁎
.15⁎⁎
−.36⁎⁎⁎
.04
(.85)
.10⁎
.18⁎⁎⁎
.14⁎⁎
− .03
(.93)
.29⁎⁎⁎
−.15⁎⁎
−.08
(.59)
−.06
−.14⁎⁎
(.92)
.05
Note. Sample size was 397 for all variables with the exception of the Procrastination Scale, for which it was 394. Values in parentheses are alpha coefficients. ⁎p b .05. ⁎⁎p b .01.
⁎⁎⁎p b .001.
A.J. Howell, K. Buro / Learning and Individual Differences 19 (2009) 151–154
(r = .15, p b .01) whereas incremental beliefs correlated negatively with
procrastination (r = −.10, p b .05). Entity beliefs correlated negatively
with a mastery-approach orientation (r = −.11, p b .05) and positively
with mastery-avoidance (r = .14, p b .01), performance-approach
(r = .10, p b .05), and performance-avoidance (r = .10, p b .05) goal
orientations. Incremental beliefs correlated inversely with a performance-avoidance orientation (r = −.12, p b .05) but were uncorrelated
with the remaining goal orientations. Procrastination was negatively
correlated with a mastery-approach goal orientation (r = −.36, p b .001)
and, to a lesser extent, a performance-approach goal orientation (r =
−.15, p b .01); these correlations differed from each other, z = 3.23,
p b .01. Conversely, a mastery-avoidance orientation correlated positively with procrastination (r = .14, p b .01).
Correlations involving age also appear in Table 1. To adjust for
restricted age range, these correlations were recalculated employing a
formula in Tabachnick and Fidell (2007), using a population standard
deviation of 13.13 based on 2006 Canadian census data for the 18–65
age range (values in parentheses are the adjusted correlations
between age and each achievement-related variable): entity beliefs
(−.49), incremental beliefs (.55), mastery-approach (.17), masteryavoidance (−.15), performance-approach (−.36), performance-avoidance (−.53), and procrastination (.21). In terms of gender differences,
women scored lower than men on incremental beliefs (M = 14.98,
SD = 4.00 vs. M = 16.31, SD = 4.16), t(395) = −2.92, p b .001, and women
scored higher than men on mastery-approach goals (M = 5.21, SD = 1.18
vs. M = 4.88, SD = 1.38), t(395) = 2.35, p b .05; mastery-avoidance goals
(M = 4.36, SD = 1.54 vs. M = 3.91, SD = 1.54), t(395) = 2.58, p b .01, and
performance-avoidance goals (M = 5.14, SD = 1.23 vs. M = 4.84,
SD = 1.35), t(395) = 2.06, p b .05. No differences emerged between
women and men, respectively, for entity beliefs (M = 13.11, SD = 4.00
vs. M = 12.77, SD = 4.56), performance-approach goals (M = 3.88,
SD = 1.76 vs. M = 3.95, SD = 1.82), or procrastination (M = 40.07,
SD = 8.65 vs. M = 41.62, SD = 8.40).
5.2. Multiple regression analyses
A two-step hierarchical regression analysis was conducted in
which procrastination scores were regressed on the two implicit
theories in the first step and the four achievement goal orientations
were added in the follow-up step, in line with the hypothesized
precedence of implicit theories over goal orientations. Given gender
and age differences on some variables, the regression analysis was reconducted entering gender and age first; no substantive changes to
the findings reported next occurred. Results (see also Table 2) from the
first step revealed that implicit theories accounted for a significant but
small (2.1%) amount of variance in procrastination, F(2,391) = 4.28,
p b .01. Procrastination was predicted by entity beliefs (β = .13, t(391) =
2.08, p b .05), but not by incremental beliefs. Results for the second
step revealed that 20% of variance was accounted for when
achievement goal orientations were added, ΔF(4,387) = 22.12,
p b .001. In this model, mastery-approach goals (β = −.41, t(387) =
Table 2
Summary of hierarchical regression analysis predicting procrastination
Variable
Step 1
Entity beliefs
Incremental beliefs
Step 2
Entity beliefs
Incremental beliefs
Mastery-approach
Mastery-avoidance
Performance-approach
Performance-avoidance
SE B
β
.27
−.05
.13
.13
.13⁎
−.02
.12
−.04
−2.82
1.46
−.37
−.21
.12
.12
.34
.27
.24
.33
.06
−.02
−.41⁎⁎
.26⁎⁎
−.08
−.03
B
Note: R2 = .02 (p b .01) for Step 1; ΔR2 = .18 (p b .001) for Step 2. ⁎p b .05. ⁎⁎p b .001.
153
−8.17, p b .001) and mastery-avoidance goals (β = .26, t(387) = 5.34,
p b .001) significantly predicted procrastination.
Additional analyses were conducted in order to test whether goal
orientations mediated the association between implicit theories and
procrastination. According to Baron and Kenny (1986), mediation
requires that the predictor variables (implicit theories) predict the
dependent variable (procrastination), the predictor variables predict
the hypothesized intervening variables (goal orientations), the
intervening variables predict the dependent variable, and the
relationship between the predictor and dependent variable is
attenuated when intervening variables are controlled.
Step one of the above regression analysis revealed that entity
beliefs were a significant positive predictor of procrastination whereas
incremental beliefs were not. To determine if the predictor variables
predicted the hypothesized mediating variables, each type of
achievement goal orientation was regressed on entity and incremental
theories of ability. Mastery-approach goals, performance-approach
goals, and performance-avoidance goals were not predicted by
implicit theories. For mastery-avoidance goals, the model was
significant, F(2,394) = 4.02, p b .05. Entity beliefs were significant
positive predictors of mastery-avoidance goals, β = .15, t(394) = 2.45,
p b .05.
Step two in the above analysis revealed that mastery-approach and
mastery-avoidance goals were significant negative and positive
predictors of procrastination, respectively. These findings, coupled
with those from the preceding analyses, indicate that the relation
between entity beliefs and procrastination might be explained by
mastery-avoidance goals. Therefore, whether mastery-avoidance goal
orientations mediated the prediction of procrastination by entity
beliefs was tested by simultaneously regressing procrastination on
entity beliefs and mastery-avoidance goals. The model was significant,
F(3,390) = 4.67, p b .01. Only mastery-avoidance goals were a direct
predictor of procrastination, β = .12, t(390) = 2.31, p b .02, suggesting
that the mastery-avoidance goal orientation mediated the association
between entity beliefs and procrastination. A statistical test of
mediation, the z′ test described by MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman,
West, and Sheets (2002), supported the interpretation of a significant
mediation effect; z′ = 1.79, p b .01.
6. Discussion
Entity beliefs positively correlated with procrastination whereas
incremental beliefs negatively correlated with procrastination. These
correlations presumably reflect the cognitive and behavioural correlates of implicit theory adoption, such that incremental beliefs
encourage consideration and adoption of those factors over which
one has some control during the completion of a challenging task (e.g.,
effort, persistence, emotion management) whereas entity beliefs do so
significantly less. The mastery-approach goal orientation was inversely associated with procrastination whereas the mastery-avoidance
goal orientation was positively correlated with procrastination. In
addition, a performance-approach orientation was inversely associated with procrastination, but to a lesser extent than the masteryapproach orientation. These findings likely reflect the advantageous
cognitive and behavioural correlates of approach-oriented goals, such
as higher intrinsic motivation and higher self-efficacy associated with
the mastery-approach orientation (Moller & Elliot, 2006). They
support growing evidence of the benefits of the mastery-approach
orientation and further distinguish it from the mastery-avoidance
orientation (Moller & Elliot, 2006).
Entity beliefs were associated negatively with the masteryapproach orientation and positively with the remaining three goal
orientations whereas incremental beliefs were associated negatively
with a performance-avoidance orientation. Despite some inconsistencies, the most stable findings concerning these relationships across
the current and prior studies (i.e., Cury et al., 2006; Elliot & McGregor,
154
A.J. Howell, K. Buro / Learning and Individual Differences 19 (2009) 151–154
2001) are the tendency for mastery-approach goals to be positively
associated with incremental beliefs (or negatively associated with
entity beliefs) whereas mastery-avoidance, performance-approach,
and performance-avoidance goals tend to be positively related with
entity beliefs (or negatively associated with incremental beliefs).
These associations are consistent with arguments that an incremental
view is more adaptive, or at least less inimical, than an entity view.
In regression analyses, mastery-avoidance goal orientations were
found to mediate the relationship between entity beliefs and
procrastination. That is, entity beliefs were associated with a
mastery-avoidance orientation, perhaps reflecting a desire to avoid
losing one's inherent ability, which in turn was associated with
elevated procrastination. Again, this is consistent with a view of each of
these three achievement-related variables as relatively maladaptive.
6.1. Procrastination as self-regulation failure
Steel (2007) argued that procrastination is reflected in the
equation E × V / ГD, where E = expectancy or likelihood of an outcome
occurring, V = value or desirability of an outcome, Г = sensitivity to
time delays, and D = the time until a rewarding stimulus becomes
available. According to this function, a pattern of temporal discounting
characterizes procrastination, wherein the value of distant, large
rewards is downplayed relative to more immediately available,
smaller rewards. From this perspective, it could be argued that
incremental beliefs are associated with lower levels of procrastination
because such conceptions encourage a consideration of mediating
factors (e.g., one's effort level, the learning strategies one could adopt,
the achievement goals one could adopt) that facilitate the attainment
of outcomes (Dweck et al., 1995) and that, therefore, heighten
expectancies of success. Indeed, incremental theorists make optimistic predictions about their likelihood of task success and highly value
successful completion of difficult tasks, whereas entity theorists hold
a negative expectancy regarding future success and experience
negative affect such as boredom during academic tasks, reducing
the perceived value of diligently working toward task completion
(Dweck, 1999). With respect to temporal considerations, long-term
goals may be sacrificed by entity theorists in the service of securing, in
the short-term, positive judgments of ability (Dweck, 1999).
With respect to goal orientations, approach-oriented achievement
goals, and especially mastery-approach goals, reflect a high need for
achievement in the learner (Moller & Elliot, 2006), such that outcomes
pursued in the aim of mastery become imbued with positive emotion
(higher value) and a greater expectation of success. Similarly, masteryapproach goals promote high self-efficacy, encourage the valuing of
competence, and enhance task interest (Linnenbrink & Pintrich,
2000). The remaining goal orientations are associated with such
qualities as fear of failure, perceived incompetence, or lowered valuing
of competency (Moller & Elliot, 2006), suggesting a negative
expectancy and reduced value of academic tasks. Finally, masteryapproach goal orientations promote more immediate effort toward
long-term projects (Covington, 2000), thereby reducing temporal
discounting.
6.2. Limitations and future directions
The current findings are limited by the cross-sectional design of
the study. Experiments which manipulate implicit theories or goal
orientations as potential antecedents of procrastination are needed.
The current findings revealed that associations among implicit
theories, goal orientations, and procrastination are small in magnitude. Nonetheless, the results were consistent with other recently
reported findings (e.g., Howell & Watson, 2007) and relationship
strengths were in line with those reported previously concerning the
same or similar variables (e.g., Ommundsen, 2001). Most importantly,
the emerging relationships were in keeping with theoretical accounts
of associations among implicit theories, goal orientations, and
academic outcomes.
It would be instructive to further study aspects of implicit theories
and goal orientations with respect to their relationship with factors
emphasized in Steel's (2007) temporal discounting theory of procrastination. Individuals endorsing mastery-approach goals and incremental beliefs may be more future-time oriented (and hence less
sensitive to delays preceding rewarding outcomes) than those who
adopt alternative views. Such individuals may also be better able to
delay immediate gratification as they diligently work toward what
they believe is a valuable and attainable outcome. Future research may
help to situate future time orientation and academic delay of
gratification, along with implicit theories, goal orientations, and
other variables involved in self-regulated learning, within the
widening nomological web of procrastination.
References
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173−1182.
Covington, M. V. (2000). Goal theory, motivation, and school achievement: An
integrative review. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 171−200.
Cury, F., Elliot, A. J., Da Fonseca, D., & Moller, A. C. (2006). The social-cognitive model of
achievement motivation and the 2 × 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 666−679.
Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development.
Pensylvania: Psychology Press.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and
personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256−273.
Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C. -Y., & Hong, Y. -Y. (1995). Implicit theories and their role in
judgments and reactions: A world from two perspectives. Psychological Inquiry, 6,
267−285.
Elliot, A. J. (2005). A conceptual history of the achievement goal construct. In A. J. Elliot &
C.S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence motivation (pp. 52−72). New York:
Guildford Press.
Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2 × 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 501−519.
Ferrari, J. R., & Tice, D. M. (2000). Procrastination as a self-handicap for men and
women: A task-avoidance strategy in a laboratory setting. Journal of Research in
Personality, 34, 73−83.
Howell, A. J., & Watson, D. C. (2007). Procrastination: Associations with achievement
goal orientation and learning strategies. Personality and Individual Differences, 43,
167−178.
Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Multiple pathways to learning and
achievement: The role of goal orientation in fostering adaptive motivation, affect,
and cognition. In C. Sansone & J.M. Harackiewicz (Eds.), Intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation: The search for optimal motivation and performance New York: Academic
Press.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A
comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects.
Psychological Methods, 7, 83−104.
Moller, A. C., & Elliot, A. J. (2006). The 2 × 2 achievement goal framework: An overview of
empirical research. In A. V. Mittel (Ed.), Focus on educational psychology Hauppauge,
NY: Nova Science.
Ommundsen, Y. (2001). Self-handicapping strategies in physical education classes: The
influence of implicit theories of the nature of ability and achievement goal
orientations. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 2, 139−156.
Pintrich, R. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts,
P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451−502). New York:
Academic Press.
Rhodewalt, F. (1994). Conceptions of ability, achievement goals, and individual
differences in self-handicapping behaviour: On the application of implicit theories.
Journal of Personality, 62, 67−85.
Steel, P. (2007). The nature of procrastination: A meta-analytic and theoretical review of
quintessential self-regulatory failure. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 65−94.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics, 5th ed. New York:
Allyn and Bacon.
Tuckman, B. W. (1991). The development and concurrent validity of the Procrastination
Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 5, 473−480.
van Eerde, W. (2003). A meta-analytically derived nomological network of procrastination. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 1401−1418.